Quote
RockingLonestar
"The sum total of his collaborations in more than 50 years as an active musician includes names such as David Gilmour, Sea Level, Eric Clapton, George Harrison, John Mayer, The Black Crowes, Gov’t Mule, Miranda Lambert and Widespread Panic."
It´s so ridiculous that there are IORR members who critisize his playing.
The only excuse is that they are
1. deaf
2. ignorant
3. non musicians

good one!

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
...the anticipation is not so thrilling as I can pretty much predict how the songs are going to sound. In the old days I'd be thinking, "Wow - I wonder what a live version of 'x' might sound like?"

So true. So very true.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
RockingLonestar
"The sum total of his collaborations in more than 50 years as an active musician includes names such as David Gilmour, Sea Level, Eric Clapton, George Harrison, John Mayer, The Black Crowes, Gov’t Mule, Miranda Lambert and Widespread Panic."
It´s so ridiculous that there are IORR members who critisize his playing.
The only excuse is that they are
1. deaf
2. ignorant
3. non musicians

It's really more about the plink-plink and happy shiny sunny day piano in songs like, oh, Midnight Rambler...

You mean Honky Tonk Rambler?

HA HA! Does it matter?

Quote
GasLightStreet
It's really more about the plink-plink and happy shiny sunny day piano in songs like, oh, Midnight Rambler...

Midnight Rambler is as dark and menacing as ever. Even more now without Taylor.
"happy shiny sunny day piano" - never noticed anything like that on MR during the last decades.

Quote
HMS

Quote
GasLightStreet
It's really more about the plink-plink and happy shiny sunny day piano in songs like, oh, Midnight Rambler...

Midnight Rambler is as dark and menacing as ever. Even more now without Taylor.
"happy shiny sunny day piano" - never noticed anything like that on MR during the last decades.

You would be "confused" about that. What bullshit lies. The last decades? What "decades"? Why don't you just change your name to FoxNews since you love to just make up bullshit?

Quote
HMS

Quote
GasLightStreet
It's really more about the plink-plink and happy shiny sunny day piano in songs like, oh, Midnight Rambler...

Midnight Rambler is as dark and menacing as ever. Even more now without Taylor.
"happy shiny sunny day piano" - never noticed anything like that on MR during the last decades.

You haven't??

I picked a random latter-day Rambler, and pressed «rec». These are the «dark and menacing» notes that I captured...





[www.youtube.com]

HMS can't hear reality - he's not in it. He trolls the land of bullshit with its vibrant colours of the worst album in Stones history.

If he can't hear Chuck in that Atlantic City-snippet, there is no hope...

Quote
RockingLonestar
"The sum total of his collaborations in more than 50 years as an active musician includes names such as David Gilmour, Sea Level, Eric Clapton, George Harrison, John Mayer, The Black Crowes, Gov’t Mule, Miranda Lambert and Widespread Panic."
It´s so ridiculous that there are IORR members who critisize his playing.
The only excuse is that they are
1. deaf
2. ignorant
3. non musicians

There are plenty of us who are musicians, and neither deaf nor ignorant. The Chuck vs. Stu debate is very similar to the Taylor vs. Wood debate. Granted it's all a privilege of personal taste and everybody's entitled to their opinions. I play piano and guitar so I respect the technical expertise of Mick Taylor and Chuck Leavell. But as a lover of rock and roll, I'd rather listen to Ron Wood's rough and ready licks and Ian Stewart's nerve jangling boogie. Technical excellence doesn't thrill me the way raw rock and roll energy does. I will say, though that Mick Taylor added something beautiful to the Stones, whereas in my opinion Chuck adds nothing in the way Stu did. Chuck just fills in musical spaces with "correct" but uninspired plonking. Very talented but lacking in soul. I prefer musicians with soul even if they're technically less proficient than the professionals. I know...I've said all this to death so I'll shut up now........And yeah..Chuck's licks on something like Midnight Rambler are entirely too "happy" sounding for the mood of the piece.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2016-09-13 18:13 by HonkeyTonkFlash.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

You haven't??

I picked a random latter-day Rambler, and pressed «rec». These are the «dark and menacing» notes that I captured...





[www.youtube.com]

Hardly audible, but... as usual I can hear nothing "wrong" with Chuck´s playing. I recommend listening to all 1990-2013-MR-versions officially released, we´ve got at least half a dozen and they´re all great, some even stunning, especially those on FourFlicks/BiggestBang.

Quote
HMS

Quote
DandelionPowderman

You haven't??

I picked a random latter-day Rambler, and pressed «rec». These are the «dark and menacing» notes that I captured...





[www.youtube.com]

Hardly audible, but... as usual I can hear nothing "wrong" with Chuck´s playing. I recommend listening to all 1990-2013-MR-versions officially released, we´ve got at least half a dozen and they´re all great, some even stunning, especially those on FourFlicks/BiggestBang.

Midnight Rambler is supposed to be a dark and sinister piece. On Ya Ya's you certainly won't hear any happy-sounding piano going against the grain. I still like the versions from 1989 on but they should have mixed Chuck's tinkling way, way down in the mix. It just doesn't suit the song.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
RockingLonestar
"The sum total of his collaborations in more than 50 years as an active musician includes names such as David Gilmour, Sea Level, Eric Clapton, George Harrison, John Mayer, The Black Crowes, Gov’t Mule, Miranda Lambert and Widespread Panic."
It´s so ridiculous that there are IORR members who critisize his playing.
The only excuse is that they are
1. deaf
2. ignorant
3. non musicians

There are plenty of us who are musicians, and neither deaf nor ignorant. The Chuck vs. Stu debate is very similar to the Taylor vs. Wood debate. Granted it's all a privilege of personal taste and everybody's entitled to their opinions. I play piano and guitar so I respect the technical expertise of Mick Taylor and Chuck Leavell. But as a lover of rock and roll, I'd rather listen to Ron Wood's rough and ready licks and Ian Stewart's nerve jangling boogie. Technical excellence doesn't thrill me the way raw rock and roll energy does. I will say Mick Taylor added something beautiful to the Stones, whereas in my opinion Chuck adds nothing in the way Stu did. Chuck just fills in musical spaces with "correct" but uninspired plonking. Very talented but lacking in soul. I prefer musicians with soul even if they're technically less proficient than the professionals. I know...I've said all this to death so I'll shut up now........And yeah..Chuck's licks on something like Midnight Rambler are entirely too "happy" sounding for the mood of the piece.

Well, I am no musician and I may be considered deaf and ignorant.

To me, however, there is no similarity between the Chuck Leavell's plonk - plonk piano sound vs Ian Stewart comparison and the Mick Taylor vs Ron Wood comparison. Those comparisons are widely different. Only one motivation would be to mention the feel and taste in Mick Taylor's guitar playing.

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
RockingLonestar
"The sum total of his collaborations in more than 50 years as an active musician includes names such as David Gilmour, Sea Level, Eric Clapton, George Harrison, John Mayer, The Black Crowes, Gov’t Mule, Miranda Lambert and Widespread Panic."
It´s so ridiculous that there are IORR members who critisize his playing.
The only excuse is that they are
1. deaf
2. ignorant
3. non musicians

There are plenty of us who are musicians, and neither deaf nor ignorant. The Chuck vs. Stu debate is very similar to the Taylor vs. Wood debate. Granted it's all a privilege of personal taste and everybody's entitled to their opinions. I play piano and guitar so I respect the technical expertise of Mick Taylor and Chuck Leavell. But as a lover of rock and roll, I'd rather listen to Ron Wood's rough and ready licks and Ian Stewart's nerve jangling boogie. Technical excellence doesn't thrill me the way raw rock and roll energy does. I will say, though that Mick Taylor added something beautiful to the Stones, whereas in my opinion Chuck adds nothing in the way Stu did. Chuck just fills in musical spaces with "correct" but uninspired plonking. Very talented but lacking in soul. I prefer musicians with soul even if they're technically less proficient than the professionals. I know...I've said all this to death so I'll shut up now........And yeah..Chuck's licks on something like Midnight Rambler are entirely too "happy" sounding for the mood of the piece.

This is probably the most touchy subject around here because people get really defensive but...

Besides just plain enjoying/admiring his playing much more, I've always preferred Mick Taylor's tone to Ron Wood's. Taylor can play some pretty menacing riffs (the verses to Gimme Shelter, parts of Rambler), he's not all pretty phrases and melodies.

As far as the piano players, Hopkins and Stu both played acoustic pianos and that is far superior to any electric piano, ever. So once again, a matter of tone for me.

Quote
TravelinMan

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
RockingLonestar
"The sum total of his collaborations in more than 50 years as an active musician includes names such as David Gilmour, Sea Level, Eric Clapton, George Harrison, John Mayer, The Black Crowes, Gov’t Mule, Miranda Lambert and Widespread Panic."
It´s so ridiculous that there are IORR members who critisize his playing.
The only excuse is that they are
1. deaf
2. ignorant
3. non musicians

There are plenty of us who are musicians, and neither deaf nor ignorant. The Chuck vs. Stu debate is very similar to the Taylor vs. Wood debate. Granted it's all a privilege of personal taste and everybody's entitled to their opinions. I play piano and guitar so I respect the technical expertise of Mick Taylor and Chuck Leavell. But as a lover of rock and roll, I'd rather listen to Ron Wood's rough and ready licks and Ian Stewart's nerve jangling boogie. Technical excellence doesn't thrill me the way raw rock and roll energy does. I will say, though that Mick Taylor added something beautiful to the Stones, whereas in my opinion Chuck adds nothing in the way Stu did. Chuck just fills in musical spaces with "correct" but uninspired plonking. Very talented but lacking in soul. I prefer musicians with soul even if they're technically less proficient than the professionals. I know...I've said all this to death so I'll shut up now........And yeah..Chuck's licks on something like Midnight Rambler are entirely too "happy" sounding for the mood of the piece.

This is probably the most touchy subject around here because people get really defensive but...

Besides just plain enjoying/admiring his playing much more, I've always preferred Mick Taylor's tone to Ron Wood's. Taylor can play some pretty menacing riffs (the verses to Gimme Shelter, parts of Rambler), he's not all pretty phrases and melodies.

As far as the piano players, Hopkins and Stu both played acoustic pianos and that is far superior to any electric piano, ever. So once again, a matter of tone for me.

Those parts were pretty, too. Nothing wrong with that, of course.

Ok HMS here is a real question ready .Name the album and song where Chuck Leavell made his mark on a OFFICAL STUDIO album of the Rolling Stones that wowed the fans ? (not a concert on a tour )



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-09-13 19:45 by TheGreek.

Quote
TheGreek
Ok HMS here is a real question ready .Name the album and song where Chuck Leavell made his mark on a OFFICAL STUDIO album that wowed the fans ? (not a concert on a tour )

You're asking for Back To Zero here...

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TheGreek
Ok HMS here is a real question ready .Name the album and song where Chuck Leavell made his mark on a OFFICAL STUDIO album that wowed the fans ? (not a concert on a tour )

You're asking for Back To Zero here...

Dear God...the horror! ><

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TravelinMan

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
RockingLonestar
"The sum total of his collaborations in more than 50 years as an active musician includes names such as David Gilmour, Sea Level, Eric Clapton, George Harrison, John Mayer, The Black Crowes, Gov’t Mule, Miranda Lambert and Widespread Panic."
It´s so ridiculous that there are IORR members who critisize his playing.
The only excuse is that they are
1. deaf
2. ignorant
3. non musicians

There are plenty of us who are musicians, and neither deaf nor ignorant. The Chuck vs. Stu debate is very similar to the Taylor vs. Wood debate. Granted it's all a privilege of personal taste and everybody's entitled to their opinions. I play piano and guitar so I respect the technical expertise of Mick Taylor and Chuck Leavell. But as a lover of rock and roll, I'd rather listen to Ron Wood's rough and ready licks and Ian Stewart's nerve jangling boogie. Technical excellence doesn't thrill me the way raw rock and roll energy does. I will say, though that Mick Taylor added something beautiful to the Stones, whereas in my opinion Chuck adds nothing in the way Stu did. Chuck just fills in musical spaces with "correct" but uninspired plonking. Very talented but lacking in soul. I prefer musicians with soul even if they're technically less proficient than the professionals. I know...I've said all this to death so I'll shut up now........And yeah..Chuck's licks on something like Midnight Rambler are entirely too "happy" sounding for the mood of the piece.

This is probably the most touchy subject around here because people get really defensive but...

Besides just plain enjoying/admiring his playing much more, I've always preferred Mick Taylor's tone to Ron Wood's. Taylor can play some pretty menacing riffs (the verses to Gimme Shelter, parts of Rambler), he's not all pretty phrases and melodies.

As far as the piano players, Hopkins and Stu both played acoustic pianos and that is far superior to any electric piano, ever. So once again, a matter of tone for me.

Those parts were pretty, too. Nothing wrong with that, of course.

However, prettyness does not necessarily exclude menace ?

Besides, I seem to remember from one of your discussions formerly with Doxa, that there was something presented out of Mick Taylor's guitar playing live that you found too brutal for your liking in one way or other. Or has my memory failed me?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TheGreek
Ok HMS here is a real question ready .Name the album and song where Chuck Leavell made his mark on a OFFICAL STUDIO album that wowed the fans ? (not a concert on a tour )

You're asking for Back To Zero here...

#1 DP , you replied so fast to that one (you do know your Stones) ok i just had a listen and it is funny to me that i was able to listen on You Tube which Eagle Rock here in the states always blocks everything but not Back To Zero which is a okay track by the Stones .Nice groove to it and i have heard many worse things than this but it seems more like a Jagger track and Chuck is barely audibile on this , i mean really mixed down low . So compare apples to oranges with Chuck versus Ian and no contest .Ditto with all the late greats Ian Stewart,Ian Mclagen ,Nicky Hopkins, Billy Preston (remember him the 5TH BEATLE ) No comparison !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All I can say is that I am very glad that the times that I have seen The Rolling Stones live in my lifetime, either Ian Stewart or Nicky Hopkins were playing piano.

Quote
Chacho
All I can say is that I am very glad that the times that I have seen The Rolling Stones live in my lifetime, either Ian Stewart or Nicky Hopkins were playing piano.

Yep, I was blessed to see them twice with Stu and Mac on keys...Bill Wyman still in the band...Great memories!

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

And while we're discussing the Chuck L. modern era, does anyone but me miss the days when Keith and Ron would provide caterwauling, howling backing vocals? Yep - technically inferior to Bernard and Lisa, but so much more soulful and fun!

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

Rambler is a great example of why I can't stand Chuck. Listen to the Sweet Summer Sun version - it's like 'watch me outduel the THREE guitar players!' He basically ruins it. It reminds me of the scene in the movie Boogie Nights, where they wonder if the music is taking away from Dirk's vocals. "Are these 3 guitars taking away from my 'honky tonk' piano?' On a song that didn't have piano in the first place!
And the 'patented Chuck swipe across the keys' at every chord change - like a band that's been playing together for 50+ years can't switch gears without Chuck's swipe across the keyboard.
I know - he's doing the job he's hired for. But man - I still think he's just awful.

Quote
TheGreek

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TheGreek
Ok HMS here is a real question ready .Name the album and song where Chuck Leavell made his mark on a OFFICAL STUDIO album that wowed the fans ? (not a concert on a tour )

You're asking for Back To Zero here...

#1 DP , you replied so fast to that one (you do know your Stones) ok i just had a listen and it is funny to me that i was able to listen on You Tube which Eagle Rock here in the states always blocks everything but not Back To Zero which is a okay track by the Stones .Nice groove to it and i have heard many worse things than this but it seems more like a Jagger track and Chuck is barely audibile on this , i mean really mixed down low . So compare apples to oranges with Chuck versus Ian and no contest .Ditto with all the late greats Ian Stewart,Ian Mclagen ,Nicky Hopkins, Billy Preston (remember him the 5TH BEATLE ) No comparison !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is also the only Jagger/Richards/Leavell-penned track, if memory serves.

Nice playing by Keith and Womack, but a rather weak track, imo.

PS: The synth-riff is Chuck..

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
And while we're discussing the Chuck L. modern era, does anyone but me miss the days when Keith and Ron would provide caterwauling, howling backing vocals? Yep - technically inferior to Bernard and Lisa, but so much more soulful and fun!

You can have professionalism and order (Chuck's contribution) AND still get Keith's backup vocals.
Keith is (or used to be, at least) a wonderful harmony singer (just look at Exile, for example); however, the reason we have Bernard and Lisa is that Keith and Ronnie can't commit to getting up to the damn microphone and singing into it.

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
And while we're discussing the Chuck L. modern era, does anyone but me miss the days when Keith and Ron would provide caterwauling, howling backing vocals? Yep - technically inferior to Bernard and Lisa, but so much more soulful and fun!

Count me as standing right with you on the "I miss Keith & Ronnie Singing Backup Vocals" line. To me, Bernard, et al sing harmonies and background vocals (except the times when Bernard takes the melody) while Keith and Ronnie would sing counter melodies and back-up vocals.

Peace,
Mr DJA

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TravelinMan

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
RockingLonestar
"The sum total of his collaborations in more than 50 years as an active musician includes names such as David Gilmour, Sea Level, Eric Clapton, George Harrison, John Mayer, The Black Crowes, Gov’t Mule, Miranda Lambert and Widespread Panic."
It´s so ridiculous that there are IORR members who critisize his playing.
The only excuse is that they are
1. deaf
2. ignorant
3. non musicians

There are plenty of us who are musicians, and neither deaf nor ignorant. The Chuck vs. Stu debate is very similar to the Taylor vs. Wood debate. Granted it's all a privilege of personal taste and everybody's entitled to their opinions. I play piano and guitar so I respect the technical expertise of Mick Taylor and Chuck Leavell. But as a lover of rock and roll, I'd rather listen to Ron Wood's rough and ready licks and Ian Stewart's nerve jangling boogie. Technical excellence doesn't thrill me the way raw rock and roll energy does. I will say, though that Mick Taylor added something beautiful to the Stones, whereas in my opinion Chuck adds nothing in the way Stu did. Chuck just fills in musical spaces with "correct" but uninspired plonking. Very talented but lacking in soul. I prefer musicians with soul even if they're technically less proficient than the professionals. I know...I've said all this to death so I'll shut up now........And yeah..Chuck's licks on something like Midnight Rambler are entirely too "happy" sounding for the mood of the piece.

This is probably the most touchy subject around here because people get really defensive but...

Besides just plain enjoying/admiring his playing much more, I've always preferred Mick Taylor's tone to Ron Wood's. Taylor can play some pretty menacing riffs (the verses to Gimme Shelter, parts of Rambler), he's not all pretty phrases and melodies.

As far as the piano players, Hopkins and Stu both played acoustic pianos and that is far superior to any electric piano, ever. So once again, a matter of tone for me.

Those parts were pretty, too. Nothing wrong with that, of course.

However, prettyness does not necessarily exclude menace ?

Besides, I seem to remember from one of your discussions formerly with Doxa, that there was something presented out of Mick Taylor's guitar playing live that you found too brutal for your liking in one way or other. Or has my memory failed me?

It failed you

Mick Taylor always plays soaringly beautiful and pretty. The darkness came from other musicians, imo.

The discussion was about playing too much, btw. Precise, heartfelt and pretty noodling can also exceed its limits.

It would have taken a long time to look up that discussion, Dandelion, so I must let my assertion fall as not verified ( even if I wonder, but with no basis).

With that "noodling" remark, you remind me of a certain other poster.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2016-09-13 21:11 by Witness.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
RockingLonestar
"The sum total of his collaborations in more than 50 years as an active musician includes names such as David Gilmour, Sea Level, Eric Clapton, George Harrison, John Mayer, The Black Crowes, Gov’t Mule, Miranda Lambert and Widespread Panic."
It´s so ridiculous that there are IORR members who critisize his playing.
The only excuse is that they are
1. deaf
2. ignorant
3. non musicians

It's really more about the plink-plink and happy shiny sunny day piano in songs like, oh, Midnight Rambler...

His 'plink-plink-plink' and 'always happy' style is really irritating.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TravelinMan

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
RockingLonestar
"The sum total of his collaborations in more than 50 years as an active musician includes names such as David Gilmour, Sea Level, Eric Clapton, George Harrison, John Mayer, The Black Crowes, Gov’t Mule, Miranda Lambert and Widespread Panic."
It´s so ridiculous that there are IORR members who critisize his playing.
The only excuse is that they are
1. deaf
2. ignorant
3. non musicians

There are plenty of us who are musicians, and neither deaf nor ignorant. The Chuck vs. Stu debate is very similar to the Taylor vs. Wood debate. Granted it's all a privilege of personal taste and everybody's entitled to their opinions. I play piano and guitar so I respect the technical expertise of Mick Taylor and Chuck Leavell. But as a lover of rock and roll, I'd rather listen to Ron Wood's rough and ready licks and Ian Stewart's nerve jangling boogie. Technical excellence doesn't thrill me the way raw rock and roll energy does. I will say, though that Mick Taylor added something beautiful to the Stones, whereas in my opinion Chuck adds nothing in the way Stu did. Chuck just fills in musical spaces with "correct" but uninspired plonking. Very talented but lacking in soul. I prefer musicians with soul even if they're technically less proficient than the professionals. I know...I've said all this to death so I'll shut up now........And yeah..Chuck's licks on something like Midnight Rambler are entirely too "happy" sounding for the mood of the piece.

This is probably the most touchy subject around here because people get really defensive but...

Besides just plain enjoying/admiring his playing much more, I've always preferred Mick Taylor's tone to Ron Wood's. Taylor can play some pretty menacing riffs (the verses to Gimme Shelter, parts of Rambler), he's not all pretty phrases and melodies.

As far as the piano players, Hopkins and Stu both played acoustic pianos and that is far superior to any electric piano, ever. So once again, a matter of tone for me.

Those parts were pretty, too. Nothing wrong with that, of course.

I think we must have different meanings of what is pretty. Taylor's aggressive riff in the verses of the '73 versions of Gimme Shelter is not pretty to me. Also some of his counterpoint riffs, Satisfaction 1969 and various incarnations of Jack Flash come to mind, were surely not either. I'd say bold, filled with blues rock machismo.